I'm glad that young man has found somewhere safe to voice his views. Keep up the good work. The piece on the Canadian law was excellent. I guess I'm one of the liberal ones who would have gasped (& clergy too). I caught an item with Larry saying he wanted the law defined so that a parent could use a ruler or a belt as you had more control than with a hand, and couldn't believe my ears, so a smack to a grandchild would be no big deal it seems. It is for me – the relationship with my grandchildren is too precious to worry about power and control. Where is Larry's head really at?

there was an audible gasp in the room when he told me he smacked his grandchildren.

Isn't that assault?I mean, that is "a smack as part of grand parental correction" nobody was saying that shouldn't be a criminal offence, In fact 88% of respondents didn't say that. So lock the bugger up I say.

But the media in my opinion has been part of the problem , constant use of the words "anti smacking" when it wasn't a law specifically against smacking and as you point out Russel journalists championing cases they no nothing about - for what? Ratings and readership numbers. The point for me in voting YES was about setting the bar of acceptable behavior much higher. Yes lots of parents may choose to lightly smack their children and while its not ideal it probably does no real damage but... what is a smack? Its so subjective for many - I have heard stories of beatings with plastic pipes as being a light smack or normal "corrective" parenting.

Sounds like a good show tonight. Most sporting of you to let Baldock see what he was in for beforehand - I'm willing to bet it made for a much more sensible discussion.

The suppression of many details in this case is very unfortunate - it could, after all, show what a jury is capable of finding reasonable. Without detail it sounds pretty unreasonable, but the devil is in the details. Protecting the kids takes priority, though.

The law is different now, though, and every abuse could be a new case. If Timaru Lady is still at it, she could be busted. She won't even have the referendum as an excuse, since that was limited to smacking.

The law is different now, though, and every abuse could be a new case. If Timaru Lady is still at it, she could be busted. She won't even have the referendum as an excuse, since that was limited to smacking.

Like I said, there's a great deal that can't be said. I'd appreciate readers who might know some of it not saying it here ...

I knew a 10 year old girl who had to appear in court as a witness against her father in a family break-up case. She was so conflicted and torn at the prospect. The son in this case has the same sort of terrible place to be in and you have to admire his courage. A few adults are really nasty people. Free will?

He's with Mediaworks, he's something of a gopher for them. Last summer he hosted a lot of shows, and he'll fill in for absentees. He also does the sports wrap etc on Sunrise.

I was never a fan of Dybvig until Rich Irvine loaned me 'Microphones up my Nose' which was a good insight into the beginning of SKY and the way TV3 & TVNZ used to operate - my only memories of that sort of stuff was visiting my uncle whenever I was in Auckland and seeing him on set at TV3/SKY. [now he's at Prime but we haven't spoken since I was 10.]

The son makes the point the media should have been making all along with his example about jaywalking. Every day I travel at 60 in a 50 zone because everyone would overtake if I didn't. I am being criminalised by courteous commuting! Should I be worried? On the matter of violence wouldn't the recent school boy rugby punch up be grounds for a criminal conviction? If it is I'm surprised we don't have a faction campaigning for

"a bit of biff on the rugby field should be allowed as part of good rivalry correction"

if we don't attend to this an innocent ruby player dealing to a bit of foul rucking is going to be criminalised!

This issue is not about smacking it's about being told. Just as I would be indigent if I got stopped in the 50 zone. I'm not going to because the cops use their judgement but in other cases I'd get a ticket.

Maybe a raft of campaigns pointing out this stupidity is the answer.

"In the interests not keeping people waiting speeding to overtake the odd moron when I am late for an appointment should be allowed"

etc.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure someone will point out the civil and criminal law differences but you get the point...

Just as I would be indigent if I got stopped in the 50 zone. I'm not going to because the cops use their judgement but in other cases I'd get a ticket.

Although I suppose it's another thing a police officer could pull you up on if they weren't sure (just yet) exactly what else to stop you for. I can't say to what extent this happens, or if it does at all. I'm sure some people believe it does.

On the topic, I've personally had positive experiences with the judgement of police in traffic enforcement. 3 months ago I was pulled up for the first time in 10 years for doing 63 in a 50 zone while I was changing lanes to avoid the parked police car (which I realised in my mirror), and I thought I probably deserved a ticket. The guy spent a few minutes checking records, suggested I be careful, and let me go.

Humm... no disrespect intended Russell, but I think this week's Media7 is going to have to sit on the PVR for a couple of days for the sake of my blood pressure and staying on speaking terms with the Better Half -- who doesn't want me smashing the television until its paid for.

But I do hope you take Baldock to task for, IMNSHO of course, the outright lies (whether of commission or omission) the NO lobby put about without shame -- and with the complicity of media outlets that should have known better. Or did and just didn't care enough to subject the likes of Baldock and McCoskrie to basic fact-checking.

I was just reading the Herald (online). I am totally staggered by the number of articles on the national news page that relate to violence in schools or by school-age children. What's the bet that there hasn't been an actual increase in violence - maybe just an increase in the reporting... maybe leading up to an opinion piece along the lines of 'see - we told you that banning smacking would have these consequences' - then all the readers can go 'yeah - we were right' ????just a thought ;-)